Profits vs. People: The IP Debate in Human Rights Discourse

This Aricle is written by Anay Singh, student of Lloyd Law College.

Introduction

In the rapidly evolving age of international policy and law, two areas that were not considered to be associated with each other before—Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Human Rights—are increasingly becoming intertwined in both a positive and negative manner. At their face value, IPRs and human rights pursue different objectives: one aims to reward innovation and protect commercial interests, and the other rests on the principles of protecting human dignity and ensuring equitable access to the basic necessities of life. But now the two systems cross paths quite frequently, leading to both conflict and synergy.

The intricate relationship between private control and public access is at its core.  IPRs encourage innovation and investment by giving artists, innovators, and inventors exclusive rights over their creations, innovations, and works of art.  However, the exclusivity occasionally prevents access to technology, education, and medications—rights that are essential to a respectable human life.  In this article, we examine this complex connection from a legal and humanitarian standpoint, taking into account important judicial developments, international treaties like TRIPS and ICESCR, and sections of the Indian constitution.

Understanding Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) provide authors with legal protection for their work, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. These are needed to make innovation and its economic reward possible. At the same time, human rights covered by documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) safeguard human beings with a right to health, education, participation in culture, and general human dignity.

While apparently dissimilar, both systems are struggling with identical fundamental concerns: how to support and remunerate creativity while simultaneously disseminating its benefits to everyone. The paradox is established when an IPR creates barriers to accessing essential goods or information, directly contravening fundamental human rights. This has bred two dominant schools of thought: one that sees IPRs and human rights as inherently contradictory, and the other that has viewed them as possibly complementary regimes.

The Conflict: Monopolies vs. Access to Knowledge and Resources

The most extreme conflicts between IPRs and human rights typically occur in areas such as health, education, and technology. For example, in health, drug patents that are essential to save lives can lead to prohibitively high prices, excluding poor populations and thus infringing on the right to health. Copyrights, especially if rigidly enforced, can prevent access to study material, infringing on the right to education.

One such case that is representative of this conflict is that of Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), in which the Supreme Court of India denied a patent for a cancer drug based on the fact that it did not pass the test of increased efficacy under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. The decision was celebrated globally for prioritizing public health over corporate monopolies.

Similarly, during the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the early 2000s, overly prohibitive patent legislation thwarted the availability of low-priced antiretrovirals to poor countries. This fueled international pressure for higher use of TRIPS flexibilities, most notably compulsory licensing.

The Indian Legal Landscape

The Indian Constitution, according to Article 21, has guaranteed the right to liberty and life. In course of time, the courts have expansively construed this right to include health, education, and a dignified life—each of them susceptible to adverse impact by excessive enforcement of IPRs.

Indian IP laws such as the Patents Act, 1970, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trademarks Act, 1999, also contain strong safeguards. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act prevents “evergreening” of patents in favor of generic alternatives. The Copyright Act requires fair use in education and public interest in line with India’s wider constitutional commitments.

Examples such as the Delhi High Court decision in 2016 in University of Delhi v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, brought this principle to a head, and held that the right to education of students under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution trumped narrow copyright exceptions for educational materials (CS(OS) 2439/2016). This was in line with the human rights imperative under Article 26 of the UDHR.

The International Framework: Treaties, Tensions, and Interpretations

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are mainly governed at the international level by the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights).  TRIPS has been criticized for favoring wealthy countries and big multinational corporations, even if it sets basic standards for IP protection.  For instance, the tight patent protections required by TRIPS often prevent developing nations from accessing affordable medications, prioritizing pharmaceutical corporations’ profits over the general welfare.

Innovation, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, depends on the protection of intellectual property.  It promotes innovation and study that eventually help society as a whole.  Strong intellectual property rights are crucial for developing new drugs, according to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

To correct the imbalances generated by TRIPS, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (2001) clarified that the agreement shall not prevent members from protecting public health or providing access to medicines. It reaffirmed that WTO member states have the right to utilize TRIPS flexibilities like compulsory licensing and parallel imports during emergencies of public health.

International human rights systems also promote access to healthcare. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and General Comment No.14 also state that the right to health is an elementary human right that obliges states and now companies to provide necessary medicine. Court decisions like Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Vendata Resources Plc v. Lungowe indicate a developing global legal tendency in the direction of corporate liability for human rights violations.

The protection of public health has been identified as a jus cogrns norm – a preemptory norm of international law that overrides conflicting treaty obligations, including those related to IP. In other words, protecting human life and health takes precedence over property rights, including intellectual property, a stance recognized globally during the WTO 4^th Ministerial Conference in Doha.

Importantly, this means that those harmed by patent related restrictions on medicine are not limited to the producers or sellers, but also include the end users, the patents and the public.

Simultaneously Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 15 of (ICESCR) affirms individual’s right to take part in cultural life and benefit from scientific progress. These provisions challenge the exclusivity often associated with the IPRs, particularly when it restricts public access to vital knowledge or life saving technology.

Intellectual property is also tied to the right to property and national security, as IP laws aim to ensure fair compensation for creators and encourage investment. General Comment No.17 on ICESCR Article 15 highlights the duty to protect author’s rights, although neither the UDHR nor ICSESCR explicitly use the term “intellectual property”. Some scholars argue that IP itself is a human right, necessary for culture and technological advancement. Yet this view is counterbalanced by the stronger legal consensus that human life and health outweigh property rights particularly during health crisis.

Under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), patents are considered a form of property. The European Court of Human Rights in Anheuser Busch Inc. v. Portugal confirmed that intellectual property is protected under this article, recognizing the financial interest tied to inventions and creations.

Nonetheless, Article 2(1) of the ICESCR obligates states to progressively realize human rights using all available resources, while Article 12 connects the right to health with other key rights like food, housing, education and non discrimination.

International bodies including the UN Human Rights Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have increasingly acknowledged the tension between trips TRIPS enforcement and the realization of human rights. The UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/7 explicitly pointed out that strict IPR enforcement may conflict with access to healh, food, and culture.

Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Rights

One of the most profound areas of IPR-human rights conflict lies in the treatment of traditional knowledge and the rights of indigenous communities. Much of this knowledge—related to medicine, agriculture, and biodiversity—collectively belongs to indigenous communities and is orally transmitted, thus making it incompatible with conventional IP systems that emphasize individual ownership.

To investigate sui generis safeguards, the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore was formed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). However, contemporary intellectual property laws permit outsiders to patent derivatives of indigenous knowledge without their approval or benefit sharing, which frequently results in indigenous populations losing out.

Legislative tools protecting traditional knowledge and guaranteeing fair benefit-sharing have been promoted by documents such as the Revised Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples.  This is still a challenge and emphasizes the necessity of IP systems that are inclusive and show respect for cultural diversity.

The TRIPS Agreement and Human Rights Criticism

The TRIPS Agreement has faced growing scrutiny from the human rights community. Critics argue that its provisions, especially when implemented through TRIPS-plus agreements, limit state flexibility to prioritize public health and welfare. These higher-than-required IP standards are often imposed through bilateral treaties by developed nations on developing countries.

These types of treaties have the potential to create more robust patent rights that slow down access to generic medicines, thus endangering access to affordable healthcare. The WHO and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have indicated alarm at increasing levels of intellectual property standards and their implications on human rights. A particular article in TRIPS, Article 31, permits compulsory licensing but restricts its application to national use alone, not only stifling the ability of a state to bring about public welfare but also debatable according to the provisions of humanity and human rights during crises. (In Thailand’s case of HIV/AIDS drugs, Thailand’s compulsory licensing of HIV/AIDS drugs was upheld as it was for domestic use alone.). Similarly, it is evident that intellectual property protection is paramount in making sure that it stimulates pharma innovation and sustains ongoing investment in producing life-saving drugs.

The difficulty is to balance the hard language of TRIPS, which tends to emphasize strict enforcement of IP rights, with the softer, value-based system of human rights that prioritizes the protection of fundamental freedoms and public interest. The Doha Declaration was a step in the right direction, but more legal and diplomatic creativity is required to ensure that IP regimes do not undermine fundamental freedoms.

Pathways to Coexistence and Synergy

Despite the conflicts between IPRs and human rights, finding a balance between these two areas is both possible and necessary. Building on the previous discussions of challenges and criticisms, here are several pathways toward achieving that balance:

1. Soft Law Human Rights Norms: One potential outcome of this dialog is the development of soft human rights norms that clarify the rights impacted by IP protections. As advocates press for the recognition of human rights in the context of IP, there may be increased pressure on human rights bodies to articulate specific interpretations of ambiguous rights. This could lead to the evolution of economic, social and cultural rights, creating a more robust framework for addressing conflicts with IP law.
2. Judicial Balancing: Judges must keep interpreting the IP laws to protect fundamental rights. Indian judiciary’s approach based on initiative is the model to be followed.
3. Consumer Rights and Access: An essential evolution can involve the definition of consumer rights within intellectual property. As much as IP law has focused on the rights of creators and producers in the past, a human rights approach draws attention to the value of considering consumers of IP products as holders of rights. Such a transformation would reorient state negotiating styles and stimulate policies for preferential access to culture and knowledge.
4. Promoting Open Access: Initiatives like Creative Commons, Plan S (for open-access scholarly publishing), and open-source models of software make knowledge more accessible to the masses.
5. Maximum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection: The human rights and intellectual property discussion also raises the possibility of establishing maximum standards of IP protection. Since existing treaties promote minimum standards, advocates can support the formulation of greater standards with regard to human rights consequences of IP. This might create a more balanced approach that balances innovation and public accessibility.
6. Preserving Traditional Knowledge: Creating sui generis regimes to safeguard traditional knowledge guarantees preservation of culture and fair benefit-sharing.
7. Integration of Human Rights into International Lawmaking: The extent to which human rights norms get integrated into the current IP lawmaking platforms, such as WIPO and the WTO, will be decisive in the direction of this relationship in the future. The recent developments, such as the establishment of new committees focused on traditional knowledge and greater engagement by human rights institutions in these discussions, point toward the potential to move towards more emphasis on human rights with IP regimes.
8. Human Rights Impact Assessments: Governments should analyze the potential impacts of new IP treaties or legislation on rights such as education and health before accepting them.

Global Developments and the Role of Civil Society

Thailand, Brazil, and South Africa are just a few of the nations that have shown how to leverage IP flexibilities to advance public health. Academic institutions, NGOs, and civil society are essential in exerting pressure on governments and international organizations to preserve this equilibrium.

The WTO and WIPO, among other international organizations, need to interact with human rights frameworks more transparently. It is possible to guarantee that IP lawmaking takes into account wider societal ramifications by including observers like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in WIPO and WTO sessions.

Conclusion: Toward a Just IP Regime

The debate about IPRs and human rights is not merely legal—it is deeply ethical and societal. While IPRs are essential in terms of identifying creativity and fostering innovation, they must never supersede basic human rights. Intellectual property law must be treated in a rights-oriented approach, prioritizing human dignity.

For India and the world, the way forward is to craft policies and legal frameworks that facilitate innovation along with inclusion. This requires a paradigm shift—viewing IP not merely as economic tools but as tools of social progress. Only then can we build a world where the fruits of human creativity are preserved as much as they are distributed for the collective good.

REFERENCES:

• World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property Reading Material, Publication no. 476E, Sections 4.60, 4.61.
  • Alston, P., “The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, in Manual on Human Rights Reporting, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/91/1 (1991).
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 December 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III), 3 U.N. G.A.O.R. (Resolutions, part 1), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976), G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16), p. 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966).
  • Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights, Res. 2000/7, U.N. Sub-Comm’n. on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 52nd Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/7.
  • High Commissioner Report, ESCOR Sub. Comm. on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 52nd Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/13 (2001).
  • Helfer, Laurence R., “Adjudicating Copyright Claims Under the TRIPs Agreement, The Case for a European Human Rights Analogy,” 39 Harv. Int’l L.J. 357 (1998).
  • Helfer, Laurence R., “Regime Shifting: The TRIPs Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking,” 29 Yale J. Int’l L. (forthcoming 2004).
  • WHO Policy Perspectives on Medicines, No. 3, Mar. 2001.
  • Thailand Ministry of Public Health, Compulsory Licensing Decision on Efavirenz and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (2006-2007); World Trade Organization, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 (Nov. 14, 2001).
  • Novartis Ag vs Union Of India & Ors, AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 131
  • Delhi University & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors. (2016). CS(OS) 2439/2016 (High Court of Delhi)
  • Laserdisken ApS v. Kulturministeriet, 2006 E.C.R. I-08089, ¶ 65.
  • Bayer Corp. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., (2014) 7 SCC 790 (India).
  • General Comment No. 17. 
  • Aigul Shakhmova, Intellectual Property and Scientific-Technological Development: In the Prospect of Human Rights Protection, 3 EASTERN EUR. SCI. J. 135, 135 (2014).
  • Lenzing AG v. United Kingdom (UK), [1997] RPC 245 (1997); see also, No. 12633/87, Dec. 4.10.90, D.R. 66, p. 79.
  • Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, March 20, 1952, 213 U.N.T.S. 262. 
  • Marckx v. Belgium, App No. 6833/74, 31 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), ¶ 63 (1979).
  • Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal, App.No.73049/01, 45 Eur. H.R. Rep. 36 [830], (Grand Chamber 2007).
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, art. 2(1), 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
  • Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the ICESCR), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (Aug. 11, 2000), available at https://www.globalhealthrights.org/instrument/cescr-general-comment-no-14-the-right-to-health/.
  • Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013).
  • Vedanta Resources Plc v. Lungowe, (2019) UKSC 20.
  • World Trade Organization, Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001, WTO Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 41 ILM 746 (2002) [hereinafter Doha Declaration].